OpenText Functional Testing and Parasoft SOAtest focus on different aspects of testing. While OpenText Functional Testing offers extensive compatibility across GUI, database, and API testing environments, Parasoft SOAtest is more specialized in API testing with strong features for continuous testing and service virtualization. Given these distinctions, Parasoft SOAtest has an edge in API testing due to its superior support for complex applications.
Features: OpenText Functional Testing is versatile, supporting various technologies like SAP and Oracle. Key features include object recognition and advanced automation frameworks enabled by AI, enhancing testing across different platforms. Parasoft SOAtest shines in API testing and service virtualization, efficiently handling integration testing with broad protocol support and automation capabilities.
Room for Improvement: OpenText Functional Testing could refine browser compatibility, performance, and integration with CI/CD tools. Improvements in desktop application handling and the licensing model are also needed. Parasoft SOAtest users request a better user interface, improved report generation, and handling of large file workspaces, along with enhanced configuration simplicity and web UI testing.
Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Functional Testing offers flexible deployment across on-premises and cloud environments. Although customer service is generally positive, complex issues sometimes encounter response delays. Parasoft SOAtest, mainly deployed on-premises or as a hybrid, is praised for responsive support, but its complex licensing model poses challenges for some.
Pricing and ROI: OpenText Functional Testing is expensive, with licensing costs often cited as a barrier, yet users note substantial ROI from reduced manual testing. Parasoft SOAtest also incurs high costs, but its comprehensive test management justifies the price for enterprises with intricate integrations. Both solutions deliver good ROI when aligned with organizational needs, though cost remains vital for budget-conscious firms.
The development time using UFT can be cut down into half as compared to coding from scratch.
Automation is done very fast, leading to improvements in the QA process and reducing the time needed for test automation.
We can easily achieve a return on investment in one, two, or three years.
Tasks that previously took four or five minutes can now be completed in 20 to 30 seconds with the help of the tool.
We found Parasoft SOAtest to be quick in building up test patterns, allowing us to create complex tests efficiently.
Organizations can't wait for this lengthy process, especially when they are under pressure with their timelines.
Support cases are easily created and attended to promptly, depending on urgency.
I would rate the support for this product a seven on a scale of one to ten.
Running them in parallel allows you to consume multiple runtime licenses and just execute the tests that don't have conflicting priorities and get through a lot of volume much quicker.
The tool can be installed on all computers used by developers or test automation engineers.
One of the key stability issues was that Windows would consume memory without releasing it, leading to regression testing crashes.
In particular use cases with numerous steps, it experiences crashes.
Incorporating behavior-driven development tests would enhance the capabilities of UFT One.
If it could move closer to a no-code or low-code solution, it might dominate the market again.
We frequently encountered stability issues when the browser dependency caused Windows to consume memory without releasing it, leading to crashes during regression testing.
It did not support enough of the protocols or cryptography formats we needed, which led us to create our own solutions.
One improvement would be to integrate it with modern technologies such as AI, so we can generate test cases by providing the details so that it can generate the structure, and later the person working can modify and enhance it.
In terms of improvements for Parasoft SOAtest, some features could be added or perhaps existing areas could be improved, such as lowering prices.
There are many open-source tools with no cost, and there are no-code tools that are less expensive than UFT.
It's cheaper than Tricentis Tosca but more expensive than some others.
The pricing or licensing policy of OpenText is a bit expensive, however, it's one of the best solutions in the market.
Parasoft SOAtest is expensive, but it was acquired because the company was dissatisfied with Quick Test Pro.
UFT supports Oracle, SAP, PeopleSoft, and other non-web applications, making automation feasible.
The object repository is one of the best in the market, allowing creation of a repository useful for all tests.
The ease of being able to create scripts using the AI tools are the differentiating factors.
The advantages include the custom tool and the extension tool where you can write scripts in different languages such as Groovy, Java, and Jython.
Parasoft SOAtest improves the quality of the application, increases security and security compliance, and it is a cost-effective tool.
Parasoft SOAtest is very good at ensuring tests don't pass or fail until they genuinely pass or fail.
| Product | Market Share (%) |
|---|---|
| OpenText Functional Testing | 8.4% |
| Parasoft SOAtest | 1.1% |
| Other | 90.5% |
| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 20 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 13 |
| Large Enterprise | 71 |
| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 9 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 3 |
| Large Enterprise | 23 |
OpenText Functional Testing provides automated testing with compatibility across technologies, browsers, and platforms. It targets APIs, GUIs, and applications like SAP and Oracle for efficient test automation, emphasizing usability and integration with tools such as Jenkins and ALM.
OpenText Functional Testing offers wide-ranging automation capabilities for functional and regression testing, API testing, and automation across web, desktop, and mainframe applications. It supports script recording and object identification, appealing to less technical users. Despite its advantages, it grapples with memory issues, stability concerns, and a challenging scripting environment. Its VBScript reliance limits flexibility, generating demand for enhanced language support and speed improvement. Users appreciate its role in continuous integration and deployment processes, managing test data efficiently, and reducing manual testing efforts.
What are the key features of OpenText Functional Testing?In industries like finance and healthcare, OpenText Functional Testing is leveraged for end-to-end automation, ensuring streamlined processes and accuracy in testing. Many companies utilize it for efficient test data management and integrating testing within continuous integration/deployment operations.
Parasoft SOAtest delivers fully integrated API and web service testing capabilities that automate end-to-end functional API testing. Streamline automated testing with advanced codeless test creation for applications with multiple interfaces (REST & SOAP APIs, microservices, databases, and more).
SOAtest reduces the risk of security breaches and performance outages by transforming functional testing artifacts into security and load equivalents. Such reuse, along with continuous monitoring of APIs for change, allows faster and more efficient testing.
We monitor all Functional Testing Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
